BA Employee wins Discrimination Case

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by dontenn, Jan 15, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. BA Employee Wins Religious Discrimination Case


    Seems a victory for common sense for BA employee.. but not so good for the other three as the EU court of HR
    ruled against their claims. IMHO I don't think it could have gone in their favour, however, they are probably going to appeal - and the Lawyers are rubbing their greedy fcuking hands, they are the real winners.
     
  2. I think the balance of the judgement is about right. I could never see the problem with a relatively minor crucifix, but at least two of the other three seemed spurious claims. I am a bit concerned about the man sacked for gross misconducy for simply stating he "might have a problem" counselling gay couples.
     
  3. To be honest if Gary McFarlane the marriage councellor dropped himself in the shit, why didn't he say that he does not have the relevent skills for gay councelling and recommend to his employer that they recruit a suitable person for the task - that will give him time to choose a different career - Sorted.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Because a Christian marrige counsellor is the ideal person to help a gay couple that was stupid.:(
    The crucifix thing was extra retarded because BA allow Hijabs claiming one is an intergral part of worshipping a fictional character
    But the other never struck me as defendable.
     
  5. I think a lot has to do with perception, most members of the public would picture Nadia Eweida with an open necked blouse and she has always posed that way for the media.

    However, BA female staff unform was a cravat at the time and hanging a chain over it whether with crucifix or a locket, over the top of it was against BA dress regs.

    It sounds like she was going out of her way to make a religious statement rather than a fashion one.

    If you liken it to a military context, wearing a crucifix above the neckline of an open-necked shirt might be permissable but wearing outside the collar of a No1 dress tunic would be a definite no-no.
     
  6. I'm confused- she wins a case against BA but it's the UK Govt that has to Pay???
     
  7. No she won an appeal against a judgement made by a British court in BA's favour!
     
  8. So if a Muslim refuese to handle pork as part of the normal duties of the post they do, can they be lawfully excluded ?
     
  9. In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

    All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

    A Muslim is recommended not to handle pork, which is haram (Arabic for: prohibited according to Islamic teachings) for consumption. So, a Muslim is better advised to avoid handling pork on condition that this will not result in causing him or her much damage such as losing his or her job.

    As the fiqh rule of protecting oneself from things that lead to haram, one is recommended to shun all avenues leading to a haram act. Therefore, a Muslim should avoid handling pork as it is haram.

    Allah Almighty knows best.

    Not bad eh .......... that reminds me to check on the pork chops under the grill......
     
  10. As I understand it she was wearing a cross, not a crucifix, so not really a religious statement(?)